Why the Moon is not Absolutely Mind-Independent

[Veritas Aequitas]

I had NEVER claimed that the Moon as "thought" by humans and the Moon "out there" are one and the same thing.

No one is saying you claim it. But the deduction only works if they are the same thing.

Notice that you constantly say things like: I have said this a thousand times. Or I never said X or I have demonstrated again and again.

Consider the possibility that a diverse set of people, people with different belief systems, all keep noticing certain problems in your arguments, generally the same problems. It might be a communication or language use issue.

But we keep repeating ourselves and also try to find a variety of ways to point out the problems.

It doesn't mean your conclusions are wrong, not does it necessarily mean that whatever deduction you did in you head is wrong, but at the very least there are problems with your communication.

Just consider that possibility.

Don't try to bank on the ad populum fallacy.

Consider why Kant called his CPR as based on the Copernican Revolution.

• The Copernican Revolution was the paradigm shift from the Ptolemaic model of the heavens, which described the cosmos as having Earth stationary at the center of the universe, to the heliocentric model with the Sun at the center of the Solar System.

What we are facing here is the realization of reality between mind-independence [philosophical realism] versus ANTI-philosophical_realism [empirical realism -transcendental idealism].

The majority of posters here belong to the the philosophical realism camp while it appears I am the only one who has declared my position as ANTI-philosophical_realism, i.e. against anti-philosophical realism.

In this case, I don't believe communication [even though I have some handicap] is a big issue, it is just that those who are dogmatically stuck with the ideology of philosophical realism as so blinded, they are not likely to understand the position of the anti-philosophical_realists [in my case that of Kantian related philosophy].

The philosophical realists here are like those of the Ptolemaic model who could not cannot agree and understand Copernicus claim it is the Earth that orbit the sun and not otherwise.
It is also the same with the theists versus the non-theists position where there is no way in their existing position, theists will agree with the non-theists denial of God.

Atla in his dogmatic ignorance keep insisting my position is that of direct perception [naive/indirect realism] when I insisted with explanation why I am not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your argument is still based on direct perception. As you said, this is vulgar & kindergartenish. Again:

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

If you STILL pretend not to get it, I'm asking you to actually prove your claim that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent under



either. For starters, prove that there can't be a Moon "out there", or that there is a Moon "out there" but it's mind-dependent, or that indirect perception is otherwise impossible.
At this point you are probably already preparing to lie again, so here it is again: indirect perception has two things, the "Moon as perceived/thought", and "the Moon out there", and these two are not one and the same thing. They are two different things.

The point is you are making a positive claim, i.e.
'the moon exists as absolutely mind-independent'
protocol wise, the onus is on you to prove the positive claim.

Science has proven it as much as it is possible to prove something scientifically. Which you pretend didn't happen even though it did.

Strawman, you are merely transposing your kindergartenish philosophy onto mine.

I repeat,

I deny Philosophical Realism which claim there is an absolutely mind-independent moon 'out there".
So, how can I claim there is "a Moon 'out there'" then assuming it is the same things as the moon as "thought" by humans?
I do not have such a philosophical thought because it is vulgar & kindergartenish.
I do not agree with indirect perception / realism [absolutely].
I do not accept the noumenon in the positive sense - but accept it only in the negative sense.

Rather, what is the real moon emerged and is realized in spontaneity with the human conditions, then it is only perceived, known and described subsequently.
I have presented this link a '1000' times.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

Do you understand the significance of the above thread?
Since this is what I am claiming, I suggest you take a serious view of the above thread and explain what you understand [not necessary agree with] therein.

You cannot critique my point unless you understand what is represent, otherwise you will keep constructing strawman[s] and make a fool of yourself.

[Atla]

Strawman, you are merely transposing your kindergartenish philosophy onto mine.

I repeat,

I deny Philosophical Realism which claim there is an absolutely mind-independent moon 'out there".
So, how can I claim there is "a Moon 'out there'" then assuming it is the same things as the moon as "thought" by humans?
I do not have such a philosophical thought because it is vulgar & kindergartenish.
I do not agree with indirect perception / realism [absolutely].
I do not accept the noumenon in the positive sense - but accept it only in the negative sense.

Rather, what is the real moon emerged and is realized in spontaneity with the human conditions, then it is only perceived, known and described subsequently.
I have presented this link a '1000' times.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

Do you understand the significance of the above thread?
Since this is what I am claiming, I suggest you take a serious view of the above thread and explain what you understand [not necessary agree with] therein.

You cannot critique my point unless you understand what is represent, otherwise you will keep constructing strawman[s] and make a fool of yourself.

Oh I can assure you I'm not the one who has been making a fool of himself for like 5 years. Kant has revolutionized the indirect perception philosophy too, all this time you've been shitting on that part of Kant's legacy. I'm asking you to justify that.

Good, now we're one step closer:

Prove that there can be no (entirely or partially unknowable) positive noumenon, without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

You trust ChatGPT more than you trust us:

According to Immanuel Kant's philosophy, a noumenon is an unknowable, underlying reality that exists beyond our sensory experience and understanding. Kant proposed that our knowledge is limited to the realm of phenomena, which are the appearances or representations of objects as they appear to us through our senses and are structured by our cognitive faculties.

Kant argued that we can never have direct knowledge of noumena because our perception and understanding are inherently shaped by the categories and structures of our mind. These categories are the framework through which we organize and interpret sensory data, and they are inherent to human cognition.

Kant didn't specify particular types or categories of noumena that could exist. Instead, he emphasized that any attempt to characterize noumena or understand them in terms of our sensory experiences would be futile, as our knowledge is bound by the limits of our cognitive apparatus and the structures of our consciousness.

In summary, according to Kant, the nature of noumena remains beyond the scope of human knowledge, and we can only have knowledge of the phenomena we experience through our senses and cognitive faculties.

According to Immanuel Kant's philosophy, the noumenon refers to the thing-in-itself, the underlying reality that exists independently of human perception and experience. Kant argued that while we can have knowledge of phenomena (the way things appear to us), our cognitive faculties are structured in a way that prevents us from directly knowing the noumenal realm.

Kant didn't explicitly state that the noumenon is impossible to exist, but he did argue that we can never have direct knowledge of it. He believed that our perceptions and experiences are mediated by our senses and cognitive structures, which shape the way we understand and interact with the world. Since we are bound by these limitations, we can never access the noumenal realm as it truly is.

In summary, Kant's position is not that the noumenon is impossible to exist, but rather that our epistemic limitations prevent us from knowing its nature or existence directly. He focused on the limitations of human cognition when it comes to accessing ultimate reality beyond our subjective experiences.

Where does that say that the noumenon is impossible to exist? Looks like you'll have to part ways with Kant on this one and present your own proof.

[Atla]

Maybe this is how it went:

Kant: "I propose we can't talk about the noumenon, so I won't talk about it."
*Kant proceeds to not talk about the noumenon*
VA: "Kant is not talking about the noumenon, so he's implying it can't exist. I glimpsed the true meaning of his words. I'm a genius and everyone else is a philosophical gnat."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oh I can assure you I'm not the one who has been making a fool of himself for like 5 years. Kant has revolutionized the indirect perception philosophy too, all this time you've been shitting on that part of Kant's legacy. I'm asking you to justify that.

Good, now we're one step closer:

Prove that there can be no (entirely or partially unknowable) positive noumenon, without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

You trust ChatGPT more than you trust us:

According to Immanuel Kant's philosophy, a noumenon is an unknowable, underlying reality that exists beyond our sensory experience and understanding. Kant proposed that our knowledge is limited to the realm of phenomena, which are the appearances or representations of objects as they appear to us through our senses and are structured by our cognitive faculties.

Kant argued that we can never have direct knowledge of noumena because our perception and understanding are inherently shaped by the categories and structures of our mind. These categories are the framework through which we organize and interpret sensory data, and they are inherent to human cognition.

Kant didn't specify particular types or categories of noumena that could exist. Instead, he emphasized that any attempt to characterize noumena or understand them in terms of our sensory experiences would be futile, as our knowledge is bound by the limits of our cognitive apparatus and the structures of our consciousness.

In summary, according to Kant, the nature of noumena remains beyond the scope of human knowledge, and we can only have knowledge of the phenomena we experience through our senses and cognitive faculties.

According to Immanuel Kant's philosophy, the noumenon refers to the thing-in-itself, the underlying reality that exists independently of human perception and experience. Kant argued that while we can have knowledge of phenomena (the way things appear to us), our cognitive faculties are structured in a way that prevents us from directly knowing the noumenal realm.

Kant didn't explicitly state that the noumenon is impossible to exist, but he did argue that we can never have direct knowledge of it. He believed that our perceptions and experiences are mediated by our senses and cognitive structures, which shape the way we understand and interact with the world. Since we are bound by these limitations, we can never access the noumenal realm as it truly is.

In summary, Kant's position is not that the noumenon is impossible to exist, but rather that our epistemic limitations prevent us from knowing its nature or existence directly. He focused on the limitations of human cognition when it comes to accessing ultimate reality beyond our subjective experiences.

Where does that say that the noumenon is impossible to exist? Looks like you'll have to part ways with Kant on this one and present your own proof.

Deception again.

I always qualify ChatGpt [there are unintentional omissions] "with reservations".
You don't do that, so you are trusting ChatGPT more?

One point is ChatGpt will give a very general view and always qualify there are always various nuances to complex issues. You omitted these qualifications by ChatGpt?

• ChatGpt: Kant didn't explicitly state that the noumenon is impossible to exist, but he did argue that we can never have direct knowledge of it.
  He believed that our perceptions and experiences are mediated by our senses and cognitive structures, which shape the way we understand and interact with the world.
  Since we are bound by these limitations, we can never access the noumenal realm as it truly is.

From the above, one can infer,
the above 'exist' need to be detailed; note the critical word "NEVER".
Kant assert 'exist' is never a predicate.
In this case the further point is the the existence of noumenon must be predicated as "the noumenon is impossible be [to exist as] real empirically.
Note 'real' is critical which I had used in this;
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

As such, what ChatGpt meant in the above is;

Since we are bound by these limitations, we can never access the noumenal realm as it truly is [i.e. as real, empirically real].

I had mentioned, the noumenon can only exists as an intelligible or an object of thought and NEVER as real [Knowledge -JTB].
As far as thought is concerned, any thing can be thought of, even the thought of a square-circle which is impossible to be real.
The noumenon when stretched to the extreme of the ultimate thing-in-itself is like a square-circle which is impossible to be real [empirical intuition].

Here is why Kant limited the noumenon [thing-in-itself] to merely thought-only, not as real [empirical-rational] things.
Kant asserted it is 'absurd' on the basis of thought [only] there has to be a noumenon that exists as thought only in correspondence to the phenomena. [note the refutation of the Correspondence Theory of Truth]

• But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
  otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [Bxxvi]

Whatever is thought is by the human mind, thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
Because the noumenon [also as thing-in-itself] is thought, it can never ultimately be absolutely mind-independent.

This is why Kant's thesis is "The Critique of Pure Reason" where the main theme is the critique of the noumenon which is also the thing-in-itself, as are from the mind-related Pure Reason which is driven by the crude and primal reasoning faculty adapted from our >200k years old ancestors.

So, in conclusion.
Because the noumenon [also as thing-in-itself] is merely a thought, either as negative or positive, it can never ultimately be absolutely mind-independent.

[Atla]

Deception again.

I always qualify ChatGpt [there are unintentional omissions] "with reservations".
You don't do that, so you are trusting ChatGPT more?

One point is ChatGpt will give a very general view and always qualify there are always various nuances to complex issues. You omitted these qualifications by ChatGpt?

• ChatGpt: Kant didn't explicitly state that the noumenon is impossible to exist, but he did argue that we can never have direct knowledge of it.
  He believed that our perceptions and experiences are mediated by our senses and cognitive structures, which shape the way we understand and interact with the world.
  Since we are bound by these limitations, we can never access the noumenal realm as it truly is.

From the above, one can infer,
the above 'exist' need to be detailed; note the critical word "NEVER".
Kant assert 'exist' is never a predicate.
In this case the further point is the the existence of noumenon must be predicated as "the noumenon is impossible be [to exist as] real empirically.
Note 'real' is critical which I had used in this;
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

As such, what ChatGpt meant in the above is;

Since we are bound by these limitations, we can never access the noumenal realm as it truly is [i.e. as real, empirically real].

I had mentioned, the noumenon can only exists as an intelligible or an object of thought and NEVER as real [Knowledge -JTB].
As far as thought is concerned, any thing can be thought of, even the thought of a square-circle which is impossible to be real.
The noumenon when stretched to the extreme of the ultimate thing-in-itself is like a square-circle which is impossible to be real [empirical intuition].

Here is why Kant limited the noumenon [thing-in-itself] to merely thought-only, not as real [empirical-rational] things.
Kant asserted it is 'absurd' on the basis of thought [only] there has to be a noumenon that exists as thought only in correspondence to the phenomena. [note the refutation of the Correspondence Theory of Truth]

• But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
  otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [Bxxvi]

Whatever is thought is by the human mind, thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
Because the noumenon [also as thing-in-itself] is thought, it can never ultimately be absolutely mind-independent.

This is why Kant's thesis is "The Critique of Pure Reason" where the main theme is the critique of the noumenon which is also the thing-in-itself, as are from the mind-related Pure Reason which is driven by the crude and primal reasoning faculty adapted from our >200k years old ancestors.

So, in conclusion.
Because the noumenon [also as thing-in-itself] is merely a thought, either as negative or positive, it can never ultimately be absolutely mind-independent.

I'm not doing the deception. Yes we can't empirically know the noumenon (I'm using the Kantian definition of "empirical" here, not how it is used today), the noumenon can't be empirically real. That's what I always said.

But it's insane to think that, because we can only think the noumenon, the noumenon is just a thought.

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears.

For example here Kant clearly doesn't say what you said, because Kant wasn't insane. He said we can't know the noumena, just think them. Not that noumena are thought-only.

Also from ChatGPT because you trust it more:

Yes, according to Kantian philosophy, the noumenon is considered to be mind-independent in the sense that it exists independently of human perceptions and experiences. Kant proposed a distinction between the noumenal realm and the phenomenal realm. The noumenon refers to things as they are in themselves, beyond how they appear to us, while the phenomenon refers to the way things appear to us based on our sensory experiences and cognitive faculties.

Kant's position is that while we can never know the noumenon directly or have empirical knowledge of it, he does posit its existence as a necessary postulate to explain the phenomena we observe. The noumenon serves as the underlying reality that gives rise to the appearances we perceive in the phenomenal world.

Kant's philosophy acknowledges the existence of a reality that exists independently of human minds and perceptions, but he also argues that our understanding of this reality is limited by the inherent structure of our cognitive faculties. In this sense, the noumenon is considered mind-independent in the sense that it is not contingent upon our perceptions or conceptualizations, yet it remains fundamentally inaccessible to empirical knowledge.

So, in conclusion.
Because the noumenon [also as thing-in-itself] is merely a thought, either as negative or positive, it can never ultimately be absolutely mind-independent.

That's your conclusion, not Kant's. As I said, looks like you'll have to part ways with him on this one. Stop abusing Kant. But maybe you are right and instead we've been insane all along. That's why I ask you to:

Prove that there can be no (entirely or partially unknowable) positive noumenon, without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

[Atla]

Hm Kant's main arguments are actually fairly simple and straightforward, once we created and memorized an effing list of Kantian words - modern philosophy words TRANSLATIONS. There should be a dictionary available somewhere on the net for this.

[Iwannaplato]

Hm Kant's main arguments are actually fairly simple and straightforward, once we created and memorized an effing list of Kantian words - modern philosophy words TRANSLATIONS. There should be a dictionary available somewhere on the net for this.

Of course it may be partisan or confused....
https://kantphilosophy.wordpress.com/te ... hilosophy/

[Veritas Aequitas]

Deception again.

I always qualify ChatGpt [there are unintentional omissions] "with reservations".
You don't do that, so you are trusting ChatGPT more?

One point is ChatGpt will give a very general view and always qualify there are always various nuances to complex issues. You omitted these qualifications by ChatGpt?

• ChatGpt: Kant didn't explicitly state that the noumenon is impossible to exist, but he did argue that we can never have direct knowledge of it.
  He believed that our perceptions and experiences are mediated by our senses and cognitive structures, which shape the way we understand and interact with the world.
  Since we are bound by these limitations, we can never access the noumenal realm as it truly is.

From the above, one can infer,
the above 'exist' need to be detailed; note the critical word "NEVER".
Kant assert 'exist' is never a predicate.
In this case the further point is the the existence of noumenon must be predicated as "the noumenon is impossible be [to exist as] real empirically.
Note 'real' is critical which I had used in this;
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

As such, what ChatGpt meant in the above is;

Since we are bound by these limitations, we can never access the noumenal realm as it truly is [i.e. as real, empirically real].

I had mentioned, the noumenon can only exists as an intelligible or an object of thought and NEVER as real [Knowledge -JTB].
As far as thought is concerned, any thing can be thought of, even the thought of a square-circle which is impossible to be real.
The noumenon when stretched to the extreme of the ultimate thing-in-itself is like a square-circle which is impossible to be real [empirical intuition].

Here is why Kant limited the noumenon [thing-in-itself] to merely thought-only, not as real [empirical-rational] things.
Kant asserted it is 'absurd' on the basis of thought [only] there has to be a noumenon that exists as thought only in correspondence to the phenomena. [note the refutation of the Correspondence Theory of Truth]

• But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
  otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [Bxxvi]

Whatever is thought is by the human mind, thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
Because the noumenon [also as thing-in-itself] is thought, it can never ultimately be absolutely mind-independent.

This is why Kant's thesis is "The Critique of Pure Reason" where the main theme is the critique of the noumenon which is also the thing-in-itself, as are from the mind-related Pure Reason which is driven by the crude and primal reasoning faculty adapted from our >200k years old ancestors.

So, in conclusion.
Because the noumenon [also as thing-in-itself] is merely a thought, either as negative or positive, it can never ultimately be absolutely mind-independent.

I'm not doing the deception. Yes we can't empirically know the noumenon (I'm using the Kantian definition of "empirical" here, not how it is used today), the noumenon can't be empirically real. That's what I always said.

But it's insane to think that, because we can only think the noumenon, the noumenon is just a thought.

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears.

For example here Kant clearly doesn't say what you said, because Kant wasn't insane. He said we can't know the noumena, just think them. Not that noumena are thought-only.

Also from ChatGPT because you trust it more:

Yes, according to Kantian philosophy, the noumenon is considered to be mind-independent in the sense that it exists independently of human perceptions and experiences. Kant proposed a distinction between the noumenal realm and the phenomenal realm. The noumenon refers to things as they are in themselves, beyond how they appear to us, while the phenomenon refers to the way things appear to us based on our sensory experiences and cognitive faculties.

Kant's position is that while we can never know the noumenon directly or have empirical knowledge of it, he does posit its existence as a necessary postulate to explain the phenomena we observe. The noumenon serves as the underlying reality that gives rise to the appearances we perceive in the phenomenal world.

Kant's philosophy acknowledges the existence of a reality that exists independently of human minds and perceptions, but he also argues that our understanding of this reality is limited by the inherent structure of our cognitive faculties. In this sense, the noumenon is considered mind-independent in the sense that it is not contingent upon our perceptions or conceptualizations, yet it remains fundamentally inaccessible to empirical knowledge.

So, in conclusion.
Because the noumenon [also as thing-in-itself] is merely a thought, either as negative or positive, it can never ultimately be absolutely mind-independent.

That's your conclusion, not Kant's. As I said, looks like you'll have to part ways with him on this one. Stop abusing Kant. But maybe you are right and instead we've been insane all along. That's why I ask you to:

Prove that there can be no (entirely or partially unknowable) positive noumenon, without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

You are an Ultracrepidarian drowned in the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You have not understood Kant's CPR thoroughly and yet insist as if you are an expert on Kant.

ChatGpt will not quote you this which is directly from Kant's CPR.

But if I apply these Concepts to an Object-in-General (in the Transcendental sense),
without [trans reflection] determining whether it be an Object of Sensible or of Intellectual Intuition,
limitations are at once revealed in the very notion of this Object which forbid any non-Empirical employment of the Concepts,
and by this very fact prove that the Representation of an Object as a Thing-in-General is not only insufficient,
but, when taken without Sensible Determination, and independently of any Empirical Condition,
[is] Self-contradictory.

The conclusion is that we must either abstract from any and every Object (as in Logic), or,
if we admit an Object, [we] must think it under the Conditions of Sensible Intuition.

For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we do not possess,
and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible] would be for us nothing at all;
and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves.
B336

Can you read the above and your understanding [not necessary agree with] of the above and present them in your own words? I insist this is necessary, else we will keep talking pass each other. I shall wait for this.

The point is humans do not possess an intellectual intuition to realize the reality of a noumenon which is merely a intelligible thought.
Thus the noumenon as a thought is solely a thought and cannot be really real and eternally for humans to realize it as real.

In a way according to Kant, the noumenon or thing-in-itself can only exist as an intelligible thought, i.e. it is more like a fantasy but albeit a thought that is logical but can never be real.
The noumenon or thing-in-itself is like a thought of a 'santa claus' which according to the logical faculties [Pure Reason] of a toddler is really real [the real person who brought present during X'mas].

If you think the noumenon or thing-in-itself exists as really real, then, your sort of thinking is equivalent to a toddler thinking the illusory Santa is real.
This illusion is useful to soothe the cognitive dissonance of the toddler and contribute to the economy.

Adult wise, insisting the thing-in-itself exists as really real is like adult theists insisting their illusory God is really real existing beyond the empirical.
This illusion is useful to soothe the cognitive dissonance of the adult [intellectual toddler, gnat] while raising the potential of the extermination of the human species via WMDs by Islamists extremists.

This is the same as the philosophical realists [like you] insisting an absolute mind-independent thing [noumenon - positive or negative] is really real.
Note: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40094

Prove that there can be no (entirely or partially unknowable) positive noumenon, without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

Kant had proven and demonstrated there is a noumenon [positive or negative] which exists beyond [transcendental] where it is eternally impossible for humans to realize.
BUT, the noumenon or thing-in-itself cannot be really real but is merely a useful illusion, thus, the thought [merely] of it should be maintained and sustained.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hm Kant's main arguments are actually fairly simple and straightforward, once we created and memorized an effing list of Kantian words - modern philosophy words TRANSLATIONS. There should be a dictionary available somewhere on the net for this.

I have a few Kant Dictionaries.

My own Kant Dictionary built upon Caygill's is >1000 pages with hundreds of words and their meaning.

There is also a lexicon of Kant with detailed explanation of each words and phrase used by Kant.

There are also many commentaries of the CPR with many giving misinterpretation of the more complex of Kant's ideas, especially the noumenon, thing-in-itself, empirical realism, morality and others.

Re this limited dictionary as quote above;
https://kantphilosophy.wordpress.com/te ... hilosophy/
look up the words for 'intelligible' 'reality' 'intuition'
but the main point is you cannot understand the above words without understanding all the other terms in the CPR [preferably most to be on your finger tips] which are interconnected as one whole argument.

[Atla]

You are an Ultracrepidarian drowned in the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You have not understood Kant's CPR thoroughly and yet insist as if you are an expert on Kant.

ChatGpt will not quote you this which is directly from Kant's CPR.

But if I apply these Concepts to an Object-in-General (in the Transcendental sense),
without [trans reflection] determining whether it be an Object of Sensible or of Intellectual Intuition,
limitations are at once revealed in the very notion of this Object which forbid any non-Empirical employment of the Concepts,
and by this very fact prove that the Representation of an Object as a Thing-in-General is not only insufficient,
but, when taken without Sensible Determination, and independently of any Empirical Condition,
[is] Self-contradictory.

The conclusion is that we must either abstract from any and every Object (as in Logic), or,
if we admit an Object, [we] must think it under the Conditions of Sensible Intuition.

For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we do not possess,
and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible] would be for us nothing at all;
and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves.
B336

Can you read the above and your understanding [not necessary agree with] of the above and present them in your own words? I insist this is necessary, else we will keep talking pass each other. I shall wait for this.

The point is humans do not possess an intellectual intuition to realize the reality of a noumenon which is merely a intelligible thought.
Thus the noumenon as a thought is solely a thought and cannot be really real and eternally for humans to realize it as real.

In a way according to Kant, the noumenon or thing-in-itself can only exist as an intelligible thought, i.e. it is more like a fantasy but albeit a thought that is logical but can never be real.
The noumenon or thing-in-itself is like a thought of a 'santa claus' which according to the logical faculties [Pure Reason] of a toddler is really real [the real person who brought present during X'mas].

If you think the noumenon or thing-in-itself exists as really real, then, your sort of thinking is equivalent to a toddler thinking the illusory Santa is real.
This illusion is useful to soothe the cognitive dissonance of the toddler and contribute to the economy.

Adult wise, insisting the thing-in-itself exists as really real is like adult theists insisting their illusory God is really real existing beyond the empirical.
This illusion is useful to soothe the cognitive dissonance of the adult [intellectual toddler, gnat] while raising the potential of the extermination of the human species via WMDs by Islamists extremists.

This is the same as the philosophical realists [like you] insisting an absolute mind-independent thing [noumenon - positive or negative] is really real.
Note: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40094

Prove that there can be no (entirely or partially unknowable) positive noumenon, without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

Kant had proven and demonstrated there is a noumenon [positive or negative] which exists beyond [transcendental] where it is eternally impossible for humans to realize.
BUT, the noumenon or thing-in-itself cannot be really real but is merely a useful illusion, thus, the thought [merely] of it should be maintained and sustained.

You dishonest pathological liar. I have always claimed that the noumenon can't be "really real" to us. I said this 100 times before. This is what I've been also saying all along:

ChatGpt will not quote you this which is directly from Kant's CPR.
But if I apply these Concepts to an Object-in-General (in the Transcendental sense),
without [trans reflection] determining whether it be an Object of Sensible or of Intellectual Intuition,
limitations are at once revealed in the very notion of this Object which forbid any non-Empirical employment of the Concepts,
and by this very fact prove that the Representation of an Object as a Thing-in-General is not only insufficient,
but, when taken without Sensible Determination, and independently of any Empirical Condition,
[is] Self-contradictory.

The conclusion is that we must either abstract from any and every Object (as in Logic), or,
if we admit an Object, [we] must think it under the Conditions of Sensible Intuition.

For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we do not possess,
and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible] would be for us nothing at all;
and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves.
B336
Can read the above and your understanding [not necessary agree with] of the above in your own words? I insist this is necessary, else we will keep talking pass each other.

The point is humans do not possess an intellectual intuition to realize the reality of a noumenon which is merely a intelligible thought.
Thus the noumenon as a thought is solely a thought and cannot be really real and eternally for humans to realize it as real.

In a way according to Kant, the noumenon or thing-in-itself can only exist as an intelligible thought, i.e. it is more like a fantasy but albeit a thought that is logical but can never be real.

Which doesn't mean that the positive noumenon can't exist. Now you suddenly seem to acknowledge this:

Kant had proven and demonstrated there is a noumenon [positive or negative] which exists beyond [transcendental] where it is eternally impossible for humans to realize.

"Really real" and "exist" are two completely different things. Of course however we think of the noumenon, it can't be really real.

So do you agree then that the positive noumenon CAN exist?

Just try for a second to imagine the unknowable or partially unknowable kind of positive noumenon. Not the "really real" positive noumenon. Because that's what I've been discussing for years.

[Skepdick]

So do you agree then that the positive noumenon CAN exist?

Anything that's not impossible is possible.

What determines impossibility?

[Atla]

Coming soon:
"but this must be the only right way to use Kant's philosophy, because Buddha said: ..."
Stay tuned.

But considering that after 5-10 years, hundreds of threads, thousands of comments, VA still can't grasp that some users here do combine Kantianism with indirect perception and with science in general (grasping this should take like 10-20 seconds normally to someone who spent years studying Kant), the debate about the Moon may yet go on for a while.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are an Ultracrepidarian drowned in the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You have not understood Kant's CPR thoroughly and yet insist as if you are an expert on Kant.

ChatGpt will not quote you this which is directly from Kant's CPR.

But if I apply these Concepts to an Object-in-General (in the Transcendental sense),
without [trans reflection] determining whether it be an Object of Sensible or of Intellectual Intuition,
limitations are at once revealed in the very notion of this Object which forbid any non-Empirical employment of the Concepts,
and by this very fact prove that the Representation of an Object as a Thing-in-General is not only insufficient,
but, when taken without Sensible Determination, and independently of any Empirical Condition,
[is] Self-contradictory.

The conclusion is that we must either abstract from any and every Object (as in Logic), or,
if we admit an Object, [we] must think it under the Conditions of Sensible Intuition.

For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we do not possess,
and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible] would be for us nothing at all;
and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves.
B336

Can you read the above and your understanding [not necessary agree with] of the above and present them in your own words? I insist this is necessary, else we will keep talking pass each other. I shall wait for this.

The point is humans do not possess an intellectual intuition to realize the reality of a noumenon which is merely a intelligible thought.
Thus the noumenon as a thought is solely a thought and cannot be really real and eternally for humans to realize it as real.

In a way according to Kant, the noumenon or thing-in-itself can only exist as an intelligible thought, i.e. it is more like a fantasy but albeit a thought that is logical but can never be real.
The noumenon or thing-in-itself is like a thought of a 'santa claus' which according to the logical faculties [Pure Reason] of a toddler is really real [the real person who brought present during X'mas].

If you think the noumenon or thing-in-itself exists as really real, then, your sort of thinking is equivalent to a toddler thinking the illusory Santa is real.
This illusion is useful to soothe the cognitive dissonance of the toddler and contribute to the economy.

Adult wise, insisting the thing-in-itself exists as really real is like adult theists insisting their illusory God is really real existing beyond the empirical.
This illusion is useful to soothe the cognitive dissonance of the adult [intellectual toddler, gnat] while raising the potential of the extermination of the human species via WMDs by Islamists extremists.

This is the same as the philosophical realists [like you] insisting an absolute mind-independent thing [noumenon - positive or negative] is really real.
Note: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40094

Prove that there can be no (entirely or partially unknowable) positive noumenon, without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

Kant had proven and demonstrated there is a noumenon [positive or negative] which exists beyond [transcendental] where it is eternally impossible for humans to realize.
BUT, the noumenon or thing-in-itself cannot be really real but is merely a useful illusion, thus, the thought [merely] of it should be maintained and sustained.

You dishonest pathological liar. I have always claimed that the noumenon can't be "really real" to us. I said this 100 times before. This is what I've been also saying all along:

ChatGpt will not quote you this which is directly from Kant's CPR.
But if I apply these Concepts to an Object-in-General (in the Transcendental sense),
without [trans reflection] determining whether it be an Object of Sensible or of Intellectual Intuition,
limitations are at once revealed in the very notion of this Object which forbid any non-Empirical employment of the Concepts,
and by this very fact prove that the Representation of an Object as a Thing-in-General is not only insufficient,
but, when taken without Sensible Determination, and independently of any Empirical Condition,
[is] Self-contradictory.

The conclusion is that we must either abstract from any and every Object (as in Logic), or,
if we admit an Object, [we] must think it under the Conditions of Sensible Intuition.

For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we do not possess,
and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible] would be for us nothing at all;
and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves.
B336
Can read the above and your understanding [not necessary agree with] of the above in your own words? I insist this is necessary, else we will keep talking pass each other.

The point is humans do not possess an intellectual intuition to realize the reality of a noumenon which is merely a intelligible thought.
Thus the noumenon as a thought is solely a thought and cannot be really real and eternally for humans to realize it as real.

In a way according to Kant, the noumenon or thing-in-itself can only exist as an intelligible thought, i.e. it is more like a fantasy but albeit a thought that is logical but can never be real.

Which doesn't mean that the positive noumenon can't exist. Now you suddenly seem to acknowledge this:

Kant had proven and demonstrated there is a noumenon [positive or negative] which exists beyond [transcendental] where it is eternally impossible for humans to realize.

"Really real" and "exist" are two completely different things. Of course however we think of the noumenon, it can't be really real.

So do you agree then that the positive noumenon CAN exist?

Just try for a second to imagine the unknowable or partially unknowable kind of positive noumenon. Not the "really real" positive noumenon. Because that's what I've been discussing for years.

Generally by default 'exist' is implied to be exist-as-real as verifiable and justifiable like a scientific fact.

For Kant, the use of the term 'exist' need be predicated, i.e. exist as what [predicate]?
As such, in general things exist as real, and
things can also exist as unreal, illusions, intelligible thoughts, fictions, unempirically, and the like.

So, from Kant's perspective the noumenon can exists BUT only as an illusion [not real] both in either the negative or positive sense.
Thus in Kant's perspective, God can exists BUT only as an illusion, albeit a useful illusion.

If you accept the positive noumenon exists, it can only exists as an illusion and not anything real.
In your previous posts you keep insisting the positive noumenon is unknowable and you have never accepted the positive noumenon exists only as an illusion and merely an intelligible thought.
If you agree with this, I have no issue with it, since I have been claiming this is the case based on Kant's thesis.

In all cases, whether things exist as real [empirical-rational] [FSK-ed] or as illusions [in-thought-only], they CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent [note OP], because the mind [human condition] is somehow involved.

[Atla]

Generally by default 'exist' is implied to be exist-as-real as verifiable and justifiable like a scientific fact.

For Kant, the use of the term 'exist' need be predicated, i.e. exist as what [predicate]?
As such, in general things exist as real, and
things can also exist as unreal, illusions, intelligible thoughts, fictions, unempirically, and the like.

So, from Kant's perspective the noumenon can exists BUT only as an illusion [not real] both in either the negative or positive sense.
Thus in Kant's perspective, God can exists BUT only as an illusion, albeit a useful illusion.

If you accept the positive noumenon exists, it can only exists as an illusion and not anything real.
In your previous posts you keep insisting the positive noumenon is unknowable and you have never accepted the positive noumenon exists only as an illusion and merely an intelligible thought.
If you agree with this, I have no issue with it, since I have been claiming this is the case based on Kant's thesis.

In all cases, whether things exist as real [empirical-rational] [FSK-ed] or as illusions [in-thought-only], they CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent [note OP], because the mind [human condition] is somehow involved.

Fine, but then you have to concede that your Kantian version of "empirical" is not science's version of "empirical". And you haven't been using "exist" generally this whole time.

For example, since you trust ChatGPT more:

Yes, Kantian empiricism and scientific empiricism are different in their approaches to understanding knowledge and the nature of reality.

Kantian Empiricism:
Immanuel Kant was an 18th-century German philosopher who sought to reconcile rationalism (the idea that knowledge can be obtained through reason) with empiricism (the idea that knowledge is derived from sensory experience). Kant's philosophy is often referred to as "transcendental idealism." He argued that while our knowledge is based on sensory experiences, the mind plays an active role in shaping and organizing these experiences.
Kant's view is that the mind imposes certain conceptual frameworks (such as space, time, causality) onto sensory data in order to make sense of the world. He believed that there are inherent limits to what we can know about the external world as it exists independently of our perception. According to Kant, we can't directly access things as they are in themselves, but only as they appear to us through our cognitive structures.

Scientific Empiricism:
Scientific empiricism, on the other hand, is a philosophical stance that underpins the scientific method. It emphasizes the importance of observation, experimentation, and evidence as the basis for forming theories and understanding the natural world. Scientific empiricists believe that knowledge is primarily gained through systematic observations and measurements of the external world.
In scientific empiricism, there is a focus on gathering empirical data that can be objectively verified and tested. The scientific method involves making hypotheses, conducting experiments, and drawing conclusions based on empirical evidence. This approach has led to the development of various scientific theories and models that aim to explain the underlying mechanisms of natural phenomena.

While both Kantian empiricism and scientific empiricism involve the role of sensory experience in acquiring knowledge, they differ in their fundamental goals and methodologies. Kantian empiricism is concerned with the limits of human knowledge and the relationship between the mind and reality, whereas scientific empiricism is concerned with systematically exploring and explaining the natural world through empirical observation and experimentation.

When it comes to scientific indirect perception, there are two Moons: the mind-dependent Moon as it is experienced in the human brain, and the mind-independent Moon 'out there'.

Both are empirical according to science, but the Moon 'out there' is unempirical in the Kantian perspective.

Your Kantian argument can only show that the appearance in the brain is entirely or mostly mind-dependent. But most realists know this too, maybe PH doesn't.

So it is reasonable to think that there is a Moon 'out there' and it is absolutely mind-independent, because that's what was shown by empirical science.